British Prime Minister Theresa May has said that she wants to deepen defence cooperation with Gulf countries and work towards signing "an ambitious trade agreement" with them.
Addressing the Gulf Cooperation Council's (GCC) annual summit in the Bahraini capital Manama on Wednesday, May said that Britain wanted to "make a more permanent and more enduring commitment to the long-term security of the Gulf" and invest more than three billion pounds ($3.7bn) in defence spending in the region over the next decade.
"Gulf security is our security," she told the council, which brings together the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman.
"In challenging times you turn to your oldest and most dependable friends ..."
May said that she wanted a "strategic partnership" to help boost security in Gulf countries, including defence investment and military training in Bahrain and Jordan.
During here televised speech, May also touched upon issues such as the ongoing conflicts in Yemen and Syria as well as the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) group.
"May talked about how they will confront the threat of ISIL together, and how they will confront Iranian involvement or interference in Yemen," Al Jazeera's Jamal Elshayyal, who had been following the GCC summit from Doha, said.
"But overall it is possible to say that she was mainly looking for the economic good news that the UK desperately needs at the moment."
Improving trade ties
The prime minister also spoke about discussions to improve trade ties with Gulf countries as Britain prepares to leave the European Union.
"I want these talks to pave the way for an ambitious trade arrangement" after Brexit, she said.
Theresa May was "in search of an alternative to the economic stability that the EU provided for the UK before the Brexit vote," Al Jazeera's Elshayyal said.
"May now sees an opportunity in the GCC, not only because of the vast natural resources that are here, but also because of the idea that the GCC countries between themselves have a lot of trade agreements already in place.
"So, to her, setting up a trade agreement here is like setting up something with a much bigger entity rather than just looking for bilateral trade ties between the UK and another country."
King Salman of Gulf heavyweight Saudi Arabia opened the two-day summit on Tuesday with a call for a "doubling of efforts" to face regional challenges.
Al Jazeera Media Network (AJMN) was blocked from covering the GCC summit on the ground, as Elshayyal was refused entry at Bahrain International Airport on Tuesday even though AJMN had followed all necessary procedures and submitted all requested documents to the relevant authorities on time.
Bahrain's information ministry did not immediately return repeated calls and emails seeking comment.
It was not the first time Bahraini authorities have prevented Al Jazeera from reporting on events in the country.
"Manama previously blocked Al Jazeera's reporters from covering the 30th GCC summit, without providing convincing reasons," AJMN said in a statement released on Tuesday.
"The network had prepared for special, comprehensive coverage of this important event," it added.
No official reason has been received from Bahraini officials on why AJMN was refused entry.
Wednesday, December 7, 2016
Pakistan passenger plane 'on fire' as it crashed with 48 onboard
A plane was burning in the air before it plummeted to the ground shortly after take-off in Pakistan, according to witnesses.
The plane went missing in the country's north with 48 people on board and officials have said they do not expect to find any survivors.
"The way the plane crashed and broke into pieces, there is no chance of any survival," Sardar Aurangzeb Nalota, a local legislator, said.
"The fuel tank is still on fire. the plane debris is scattered in the mountains and residents told me that it is completely destroyed."
Pakistani TV channels reported that flight PK-661 took off from the city of Chitral but lost contact with ground control shortly afterwards.
The aircraft, operated by Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) crashed around 4.50pm local time, in the Havelian area of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.
It was flying to the country's capital, Islamabad when it hit a mountain slope.
Taj Muhammad Khan, a government official based in the Havelian region, told Reuters: "All of the bodies are burned beyond recognition.
"The debris is scattered."
The army said 21 bodies had been recovered so far.
Villagers were reportedly collecting body parts in shawls and on woven beds at the site, which is only accessible on foot.
It is believed Pakistani popstar Junaid Jamshed, whose Dil Dil Pakistan was an unofficial anthem, was believed to be among the dead. The singer turned evangelical Muslim had been in Chitral.
Forty of those on board were passengers and eight believed to be crew.
Irfan Elahi, the government's aviation secretary, told media the ATR-42 turboprop aircraft suffered engine problems but it was too early to determine the cause of the accident.
Pakistan's deadliest crash was in 2010, when an Airbus 321 operated by private airline Airblue and flying from Karachi crashed into hills outside Islamabad while about to land, killing all 152 on board.
Are Elected Presidents Always Person of the Year?
With the selection of Donald Trump as Person of the Year for 2016, TIME’s editors have continued an every-four-years tradition of giving that title to the President-elect. Barack Obama and George W. Bush were each named Person of the Year twice, following their election victories.
After all, the President of the United States is said to be the leader of the free world, and the coming of a new administration can lead to a wave of change throughout the country and around the world. The Oval Office is, indisputably, a seat of immense influence. So—given that TIME’s Person of the Year is the individual who has had the most influence on the world, for good or for ill—it’s no surprise that the people who have won U.S. presidential elections tend to find themselves on the cover of that issue a few weeks later.
But, though it has been two decades since an exception has been made, it is in fact not the case that winning the U.S. presidential election is an automatic ticket to Person of the Year status.
In roughly half of the presidential election years that have passed since the franchise launched with Charles Lindbergh as 1927’s selection, the Person of the Year has been someone other than November’s victor.
Get your history fix in one place: sign up for the weekly TIME History newsletter
The most recent exception was in 1996, when Bill Clinton was reelected and AIDS researcher Dr. David Ho was Person of the Year. Previous non-president picks include the Earth (Planet of the year 1988, over George H.W. Bush), U.S. Scientists (People of the Year 1960, over John F. Kennedy) and Queen Elizabeth II (Person of the Year 1952, over Dwight D. Eisenhower). And in 1972 the election victor shared the cover (Richard Nixon with Henry Kissinger).
When a man has become president via a means other than an election, the results are similarly mixed. Harry Truman was Person of the Year in 1945 following FDR’s death, but Martin Luther King Jr. was Person of the Year following JFK’s assassination in 1963 and King Faisal of Saudi Arabia following Nixon’s resignation in 1974. (Conversely, it doesn’t have to be an election year for a president to be influential. Franklin Roosevelt, for example, was Person of the Year three times but only once following an election, in 1932.)
Reelected presidents and same-party victors are less likely to make the cover than are presidents who represent a shift in the political life of the nation.
In short, winning a presidential election does not automatically make someone a Person of the Year. There’s more than victory to influence. But if a President-elect has in fact shaped the year’s news, for better or worse, it’s hard to deny that he belongs on the cover.
After all, the President of the United States is said to be the leader of the free world, and the coming of a new administration can lead to a wave of change throughout the country and around the world. The Oval Office is, indisputably, a seat of immense influence. So—given that TIME’s Person of the Year is the individual who has had the most influence on the world, for good or for ill—it’s no surprise that the people who have won U.S. presidential elections tend to find themselves on the cover of that issue a few weeks later.
But, though it has been two decades since an exception has been made, it is in fact not the case that winning the U.S. presidential election is an automatic ticket to Person of the Year status.
In roughly half of the presidential election years that have passed since the franchise launched with Charles Lindbergh as 1927’s selection, the Person of the Year has been someone other than November’s victor.
Get your history fix in one place: sign up for the weekly TIME History newsletter
The most recent exception was in 1996, when Bill Clinton was reelected and AIDS researcher Dr. David Ho was Person of the Year. Previous non-president picks include the Earth (Planet of the year 1988, over George H.W. Bush), U.S. Scientists (People of the Year 1960, over John F. Kennedy) and Queen Elizabeth II (Person of the Year 1952, over Dwight D. Eisenhower). And in 1972 the election victor shared the cover (Richard Nixon with Henry Kissinger).
When a man has become president via a means other than an election, the results are similarly mixed. Harry Truman was Person of the Year in 1945 following FDR’s death, but Martin Luther King Jr. was Person of the Year following JFK’s assassination in 1963 and King Faisal of Saudi Arabia following Nixon’s resignation in 1974. (Conversely, it doesn’t have to be an election year for a president to be influential. Franklin Roosevelt, for example, was Person of the Year three times but only once following an election, in 1932.)
Reelected presidents and same-party victors are less likely to make the cover than are presidents who represent a shift in the political life of the nation.
In short, winning a presidential election does not automatically make someone a Person of the Year. There’s more than victory to influence. But if a President-elect has in fact shaped the year’s news, for better or worse, it’s hard to deny that he belongs on the cover.
Could a fiver featuring Jane Austen be worth thousands of pounds?
People with £5 notes in their pockets are being urged to check them carefully, in case they could fetch thousands of pounds more.
Artist and engraver Graham Short has put four £5 notes into circulation on which he has put a tiny engraving of 18th-century author Jane Austen.
Short, who works out of Birmingham and is one of the world's most famous micro-artists, worked for two weeks on each note and then quietly put each one back into circulation.
The microscopic engraving can only be seen in certain lights.
The 70-year-old decided to use Jane Austen because next year is the 200th anniversary of her death and her image will be on the new £10 note.
The notes also have quotes from the writer's work.
The artist is not sure how much his work will be worth but said something similar was insured for £50,000.
This is not the first time the creator of the world's smallest engravings has impressed with his precise work - he engraved Nothing is Impossible on the sharp end of a razor blade and put all separate 1841 cuts of the Lord's Prayer on a pinhead.
The £5 note has already had a controversial start to life outside the printing press.
It ran into trouble only last week with the news that the polymer note which is meant to withstand considerable manhandling contains animal fat, prompting complaints from some vegans, vegetarians and religious groups.
Artist and engraver Graham Short has put four £5 notes into circulation on which he has put a tiny engraving of 18th-century author Jane Austen.
Short, who works out of Birmingham and is one of the world's most famous micro-artists, worked for two weeks on each note and then quietly put each one back into circulation.
The microscopic engraving can only be seen in certain lights.
The 70-year-old decided to use Jane Austen because next year is the 200th anniversary of her death and her image will be on the new £10 note.
The notes also have quotes from the writer's work.
The artist is not sure how much his work will be worth but said something similar was insured for £50,000.
This is not the first time the creator of the world's smallest engravings has impressed with his precise work - he engraved Nothing is Impossible on the sharp end of a razor blade and put all separate 1841 cuts of the Lord's Prayer on a pinhead.
The £5 note has already had a controversial start to life outside the printing press.
It ran into trouble only last week with the news that the polymer note which is meant to withstand considerable manhandling contains animal fat, prompting complaints from some vegans, vegetarians and religious groups.
'No mandate for hard Brexit', Opposition argues
Shadow Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer has told Parliament that there is "no mandate for a hard Brexit".
His words came during a debate in the House of Commons over the planning of the UK's departure from the European Union.
Mr Starmer said: "There is no mandate for a hard Brexit, there is no consensus for a hard Brexit.
"In the last few months I've travelled across the UK to hold meetings with a wide range of interested parties...on the question of the terms under which the UK should exit the EU.
"The overwhelming evidence is that they do not want a hard Brexit, there is not a consensus out there for a hard Brexit."
In reply, the Brexit Secretary David Davis said: "To be honest, I don't really know what hard Brexit means but the simple fact is the mandate was to leave the EU, fullstop."
The Government hopes it has seen off a Tory revolt and potential defeat by accepting a Labour motion calling on ministers to disclose their Brexit plan before starting the EU divorce process.
In exchange, Labour and Tory rebels will agree to the Prime Minister's timetable of triggering Article 50 in March next year.
Mr Starmer called for the Government to publish its Brexit plan well ahead of any vote, to allow amendments to be considered.
He also said that the plan must be detailed enough to "end the circus of uncertainty" on issues such as the single market and immigration, saying that this was "causing more damage to this process than anything else at the moment".
Mr Starmer faced questions from some Tory MPs, however, including from Eurosceptic Peter Bone who said there was already legislation in the House to trigger Article 50 before the end of March.
Tory defence committee chairman Julian Lewis said that if the opposition did not oppose the Government's amendment, it would be "completely unacceptable and totally inconsistent" if they were to try to delay Brexit next year.
Mr Davis said: "Many on the benches opposite pay lip service to respective the result of the referendum, whilst at the same time trying to find new ways to thwart and delay."
But Mr Starmer had insisted Labour was not trying to "frustrate the purpose or delay the timetable" but that their moves were instead aimed at the "accountability and scrutiny" of the Brexit process.
And Mr Davis had turned and appeared to look at a group of Remain-supporting MPs in his own party while using the phrase "thwart and delay".
He also said it was "inconceivable" that Parliament would not get a vote to approve the final Brexit deal.
Mr Starmer also said that the Government should not act "solely for the 52% (who voted to leave the EU)".
"The vote on 23 June was not a vote to write those who voted to remain out of their own history," he said.
"They have a right and an interest in these negotiations and they have a right to have a Government who gives weight to their interests as well as the interests of the 52%."
MPs will vote at about 7pm tonight on the amendment binding them to back the Government's Article 50 timetable.
They will then vote on the Labour motion calling on the Prime Minister to commit to publishing a Brexit plan before Article 50 is triggered.
The debate came as the Government was embroiled in day three of its Brexit battle in the Supreme Court.
President-elect Donald Trump Time Person of the Year
This is the 90th time we have named the person who had the greatest influence, for better or worse, on the events of the year. So which is it this year: Better or worse? The challenge for Donald Trump is how profoundly the country disagrees about the answer.
It’s hard to measure the scale of his disruption. This real estate baron and casino owner turned reality-TV star and provocateur—never a day spent in public office, never a debt owed to any interest besides his own—now surveys the smoking ruin of a vast political edifice that once housed parties, pundits, donors, pollsters, all those who did not see him coming or take him seriously. Out of this reckoning, Trump is poised to preside, for better or worse.
For those who believe this is all for the better, Trump’s victory represents a long-overdue rebuke to an entrenched and arrogant governing class; for those who see it as for the worse, the destruction extends to cherished norms of civility and discourse, a politics poisoned by vile streams of racism, sexism, nativism. To his believers, he delivers change—broad, deep, historic change, not modest measures doled out in Dixie cups; to his detractors, he inspires fear both for what he may do and what may be done in his name.
The revolution he stirred feels fully American, with its echoes of populists past, of Andrew Jackson and Huey Long and, at its most sinister, Joe McCarthy and Charles Coughlin. Trump’s assault on truth and logic, far from hurting him, made him stronger. His appeal—part hope, part snarl—dissolved party lines and dispatched the two reigning dynasties of U.S. politics. Yet his victory mirrors the ascent of nationalists across the world, from Britain to the Philippines, and taps forces far more powerful than one man’s message.
We can scarcely grasp what our generation has wrought by putting a supercomputer into all of our hands, all of the time. If you are reading this, whether on a page or a screen, there is a very good chance that you are caught up in a revolution that may have started with enticing gadgets but has now reshaped everything about how we live, love, work, play, shop, share—how our very hearts and minds encounter the world around us. Why would we have imagined that our national conversation would simply go on as before, same people, same promises, same patterns? Perhaps the President-elect will stop tweeting—but only because he will have found some other means to tell the story he wants to tell directly to the audience that wants to hear it.
It turned out to be a failing strategy when Hillary Clinton, who loves policy solutions and believes in them, tried to make this race a character test, a referendum on Trump. But it was certainly understandable. He presented so many challenges, so many choices about what America values. Her popular-vote victory, while legally irrelevant, affirmed the prospect of a female Commander in Chief. In fact, she crushed Trump among voters who cared most about experience and judgment and temperament, qualities that have typically mattered when choosing the leader of the free world. Even at his moment of victory, 6 in 10 voters had an unfavorable view of Trump and didn’t think he was qualified to be President.
But by almost 2 to 1, voters cared most about who could deliver change, and in that category he beat her by 69 points. This is his next test. The year 2016 was the year of his rise; 2017 will be the year of his rule, and like all newly elected leaders, he has a chance to fulfill promises and defy expectations.
His supporters and his critics will discover together how much of what he said he actually believes. In the days after the election, everything was negotiable: the wall became a fence, “Crooked Hillary” is “good people,” and maybe climate change is worth thinking about. Far from draining the swamp, he fed plums to some of its biggest gators. Were his followers alarmed? The critics were hardly reassured: nearly half of Americans expect race relations to worsen, and many women fear that his ascent comes directly at their expense. Trump prefers to talk about the alienated workers who flocked to his rallies and believed a billionaire could be their tribune—“I love them and they love me”—and avers that his every action will be on their behalf. But can he devise a New Deal for workers in the age of automation, renegotiate trade deals and reopen factories while simultaneously elevating many of the same people who profit from the trends he denounced?
For reminding America that demagoguery feeds on despair and that truth is only as powerful as the trust in those who speak it, for empowering a hidden electorate by mainstreaming its furies and live-streaming its fears, and for framing tomorrow’s political culture by demolishing yesterday’s, Donald Trump is TIME’s 2016 Person of the Year.
It’s hard to measure the scale of his disruption. This real estate baron and casino owner turned reality-TV star and provocateur—never a day spent in public office, never a debt owed to any interest besides his own—now surveys the smoking ruin of a vast political edifice that once housed parties, pundits, donors, pollsters, all those who did not see him coming or take him seriously. Out of this reckoning, Trump is poised to preside, for better or worse.
For those who believe this is all for the better, Trump’s victory represents a long-overdue rebuke to an entrenched and arrogant governing class; for those who see it as for the worse, the destruction extends to cherished norms of civility and discourse, a politics poisoned by vile streams of racism, sexism, nativism. To his believers, he delivers change—broad, deep, historic change, not modest measures doled out in Dixie cups; to his detractors, he inspires fear both for what he may do and what may be done in his name.
The revolution he stirred feels fully American, with its echoes of populists past, of Andrew Jackson and Huey Long and, at its most sinister, Joe McCarthy and Charles Coughlin. Trump’s assault on truth and logic, far from hurting him, made him stronger. His appeal—part hope, part snarl—dissolved party lines and dispatched the two reigning dynasties of U.S. politics. Yet his victory mirrors the ascent of nationalists across the world, from Britain to the Philippines, and taps forces far more powerful than one man’s message.
We can scarcely grasp what our generation has wrought by putting a supercomputer into all of our hands, all of the time. If you are reading this, whether on a page or a screen, there is a very good chance that you are caught up in a revolution that may have started with enticing gadgets but has now reshaped everything about how we live, love, work, play, shop, share—how our very hearts and minds encounter the world around us. Why would we have imagined that our national conversation would simply go on as before, same people, same promises, same patterns? Perhaps the President-elect will stop tweeting—but only because he will have found some other means to tell the story he wants to tell directly to the audience that wants to hear it.
It turned out to be a failing strategy when Hillary Clinton, who loves policy solutions and believes in them, tried to make this race a character test, a referendum on Trump. But it was certainly understandable. He presented so many challenges, so many choices about what America values. Her popular-vote victory, while legally irrelevant, affirmed the prospect of a female Commander in Chief. In fact, she crushed Trump among voters who cared most about experience and judgment and temperament, qualities that have typically mattered when choosing the leader of the free world. Even at his moment of victory, 6 in 10 voters had an unfavorable view of Trump and didn’t think he was qualified to be President.
But by almost 2 to 1, voters cared most about who could deliver change, and in that category he beat her by 69 points. This is his next test. The year 2016 was the year of his rise; 2017 will be the year of his rule, and like all newly elected leaders, he has a chance to fulfill promises and defy expectations.
His supporters and his critics will discover together how much of what he said he actually believes. In the days after the election, everything was negotiable: the wall became a fence, “Crooked Hillary” is “good people,” and maybe climate change is worth thinking about. Far from draining the swamp, he fed plums to some of its biggest gators. Were his followers alarmed? The critics were hardly reassured: nearly half of Americans expect race relations to worsen, and many women fear that his ascent comes directly at their expense. Trump prefers to talk about the alienated workers who flocked to his rallies and believed a billionaire could be their tribune—“I love them and they love me”—and avers that his every action will be on their behalf. But can he devise a New Deal for workers in the age of automation, renegotiate trade deals and reopen factories while simultaneously elevating many of the same people who profit from the trends he denounced?
For reminding America that demagoguery feeds on despair and that truth is only as powerful as the trust in those who speak it, for empowering a hidden electorate by mainstreaming its furies and live-streaming its fears, and for framing tomorrow’s political culture by demolishing yesterday’s, Donald Trump is TIME’s 2016 Person of the Year.
Rodrigo Duterte defends police accused of killing mayor
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte staunchly defended more than two dozen policemen accused by the government's main investigation agency of killing a jailed mayor linked to illegal drugs.
Duterte said on Wednesday he still believes the accounts of the policemen, who said Mayor Rolando Espinosa Sr and another inmate, Raul Yap, died in their cells when they shot it out with police during a November 5 raid in a jail in central Leyte province.
The president said he was willing to go to jail for his policemen.
After weeks of investigation, the National Bureau of Investigation said on Tuesday it determined the two inmates died in a police "rub-out" and not a shoot-out.
The NBI, the equivalent of the United States' FBI, said the policemen probably placed pistols and illegal drugs in the cells of the two dead inmates to justify the police raid.
"What the police stated is the truth for me," Duterte said in a speech. He added he would not allow the policemen to go to jail.
The NBI findings cast a black mark on Duterte's deadly anti-drug crackdown, which has alarmed western governments and human rights groups. There have been suspicions that some of the more than 4,000 slain drug suspects may have been killed deliberately by law enforcers and did not die in gun battles as claimed by police.
NBI spokesman Ferdinand Lavin said on Tuesday that the bureau filed murder complaints against the policemen at the Department of Justice last Friday. Prosecutors will rule whether there is enough evidence to indict the policemen.
All the policemen involved in the raid at the jail conspired to kill Espinosa and Yap and cover up the murders, Lavin said.
Espinosa's death has sparked scepticism even among politicians backing Duterte's crackdown because of the apparent brazenness of the killings. He had surrendered to the national police chief in a nationally televised event after he and more than 160 other officials were named publicly by Duterte in August as part of a shame campaign.
Espinosa was later released, but was re-arrested and jailed in October after being indicted on drug and firearm charges.
His son, an alleged drug lord, was arrested in the United Arab Emirates in October and has been repatriated to the Philippines, where he has acknowledged past involvement in illegal drugs.
Duterte said on Wednesday he still believes the accounts of the policemen, who said Mayor Rolando Espinosa Sr and another inmate, Raul Yap, died in their cells when they shot it out with police during a November 5 raid in a jail in central Leyte province.
The president said he was willing to go to jail for his policemen.
After weeks of investigation, the National Bureau of Investigation said on Tuesday it determined the two inmates died in a police "rub-out" and not a shoot-out.
The NBI, the equivalent of the United States' FBI, said the policemen probably placed pistols and illegal drugs in the cells of the two dead inmates to justify the police raid.
"What the police stated is the truth for me," Duterte said in a speech. He added he would not allow the policemen to go to jail.
The NBI findings cast a black mark on Duterte's deadly anti-drug crackdown, which has alarmed western governments and human rights groups. There have been suspicions that some of the more than 4,000 slain drug suspects may have been killed deliberately by law enforcers and did not die in gun battles as claimed by police.
NBI spokesman Ferdinand Lavin said on Tuesday that the bureau filed murder complaints against the policemen at the Department of Justice last Friday. Prosecutors will rule whether there is enough evidence to indict the policemen.
All the policemen involved in the raid at the jail conspired to kill Espinosa and Yap and cover up the murders, Lavin said.
Espinosa's death has sparked scepticism even among politicians backing Duterte's crackdown because of the apparent brazenness of the killings. He had surrendered to the national police chief in a nationally televised event after he and more than 160 other officials were named publicly by Duterte in August as part of a shame campaign.
Espinosa was later released, but was re-arrested and jailed in October after being indicted on drug and firearm charges.
His son, an alleged drug lord, was arrested in the United Arab Emirates in October and has been repatriated to the Philippines, where he has acknowledged past involvement in illegal drugs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)